本帖最後由 awepp 於 2017-10-23 09:20 編輯
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (page A3220) Statement of Carl B. Rix, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: I appear in favor of the amendments. Congress is no longer bound by its constitutional systemof delegated powers. Its only test is under the obligatory power topromote human rights in these fields of endeavor: Civil, political,economic, social and cultural. These are found in Articles 55 and 56 of theCharter of the United Nations, a ratified and approved treaty. They are beingpromoted in all parts of the world by the United Nations. 會議記錄(A3220頁) Carl B. Rix, Milwaukee, Wisconsin的聲明: 我贊成修正案。 國會不再受到其憲法託付權力的約束。其唯一的考驗是在強制力下，努力推動以下領域的人權:公民、政治、經濟、社會及文化。這些在聯合國，一個批准及認可的條約，第55及56條發現。這些正由聯合國在全世界各地推動。(這裡指的條約是聯合國憲章) 註: 聯合國憲章55條: 為造成國際間以尊重人民平等權利及自決原則為根據之和平友好關係所必要之安定及福利條件起見，聯合國應促進：
(1)較高之生活程度，全民就業，及經濟與社會進展。
(2)國際間經濟、社會、衛生、及有關問題之解決；國際間文化及教育合作。
(3)全體人類之人權及基本自由之普遍尊重與遵守，不分種族、性別、語言、或宗教。 56條:
各會員國擔允採取共同及個別行動與本組織合作，以達成第五十五條所載之宗旨。 Congress may now legislate as an uninhibited body with noshackles of delegated powers under the Constitution. Our entiresystem of a government of delegated powers of Congress has beenchanged to a system of undelegated powers without amendment by the people ofthe United States. 國會現在可以是個無約束的立法機構，在沒有憲法委付權力的枷鎖下。我們整個系統下國會的委付權力，已經轉變成一個非托付權力，且未經美國人民的修正。 The authority for these statements is found in a volumeentitled Constitution of the United States of America, Annotated, issued in1953, prepared under the direction of the Judiciary Committee of theSenate of the United States and under the chairmanship of Prof. Edward S.Corwin of Princeton, aided by the legal staff of the Library of Congress. Thisis the conclusion on page 427 of the Annotations: "In a word, the treatypower cannot purport to amend the Constitution by adding to the list ofCongress' enumerated powers, but having acted, the consequence will often bethat it has provided Congress with an opportunity to enact measureswhich, independently of a treaty, Congress could not pass, and the onlyquestion that can be raised as to such measures will be whether theyare 'necessary and proper' measures for the carrying of the treaty inquestion into operation." It will be noted that one of the principal cases cited isthat of the Migratory Bird case. 這些陳述的依據是在一卷名稱為"美國憲法，註釋"上發現的，1953年發佈，由參議院司法委員會籌備指導，普林斯頓大學教授Edward S. Corwin擔任主席，國會圖書館法務人員輔助。這是此註釋427頁的結論:"總之，締約權不能藉由增加國會權力列舉，來修改憲法，但卻有效，結果通常會是，國會有機會去制定一些措施，而這原本是無法通過的，所以唯一的問題會是，這些措施哪些是"必須且恰當的"好將條約問題變成行動。" 值得注意的最重要例子是候鳥例子(Migratory Bird case.)。 These conclusions are those also of a committee of theNew York State Bar Association, of which former Attorney GeneralMitchell and Mr. John W. Davis were prominent members. Now, for some practical illustration of new-found powersunder treaties of what Congress may do: 紐約律師聯合會也同樣作出這些結論，前司法部長Mitchell及Mr. John W. Davis是其優秀成員。現在，關於國會議員也許會做的一些實際例證是: 1. It may enact a comprehensive education bill, providingfor education in any State which does not provide it. In fact, it maytake over all public education now provided by States andmunicipalities. 1.制定一個詳盡的教育法案給所有沒有這的州。事實上，這可以接管所有州及自治區的公共教育。 2. It may enact a prohibition act without an amendment ofthe Constitution. 2.可以在不修憲的情況下，制定禁止令。 3. It may enact a uniform divorce act. 3.可以制訂統一的離婚法。 4. It may take over all social and welfare servicesrendered by or through the States or their agencies. 4.可以接管所有社會及福利服務。 5. It may take over all commerce, all utility rates andservice, all labor. The list may be multiplied extensively at your will. 5.可以接管所有商業、所有公共事業費率及服務、所有勞工。 列表也許會倍增你的意願。 The new test of constitutionality will apply to alllegislation by Congress since 1945, which deals with any of the five fields ofendeavor. Any judge deciding on the validity of legislation must havetwo books before him — one, the Constitution of the United States, and theother, the Charter of the United Nations. If he does not find authority forthe act in the Constitution, he will find it in the Charter. That is theexact situation in which Justice Holmes found himself and the other membersof the Supreme Court when they decided the Migratory Bird case.The authority was not found in the Constitution — it was found in thetreaty with Great Britain. 新的測試合憲性將會在，1945年後的國會在五領域(公民、政治、經濟、社會及文化)的立法上。所有法官在判決法律的合法性必須要有兩本書，一個是美國憲法，另一個本是聯合國憲章。如果對某法律他在找不到任何憲法給予的權限，他會找憲章。當Holmes法官及其他最高法院成員在決定候鳥例子時，正是這樣的情況，他發現無法在憲法上找到授權--而在與大不列顛簽訂的條約上發現。 The question to be answered is this: Under which form ofgovernment do the people of the United States prefer to live?Manifestly, we cannot operate under both. Senators, the people of the United States have given uptheir sons; they have given up billions of their substance. They shouldnot be the only Nation in the world to give up their form of government —the wonder of the world — to discharge their obligations to the peopleof the world. 對於問題的回答是:美國人民會比較喜歡生活在哪種形式下的政府?顯然，我們無法在兩者情況下運作。參議員，合眾國已放棄他們的兒子;他們已經放棄數十億的財產。美國不應該是世界唯一放棄他們政府的國家-世界奇蹟-卸下他們對人民的義務在全世界。 THE BRICKER AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD HAVE CHANGED THIS, WAS NOT PASSED. 而BRICKER修正案將會改變它，所以不會通過。 A LETTER TO THE EDITOR 給編者的信 BRI Borger, Texas News Herald Sunday, November 11,1962 1962年11月11日，星期日 Dear Mr. Newby: 親愛的紐比先生: Replying to your letter Oct. 12th, also CHALLENGE forNovember, 1961: quoting Patrick Henry on treaties. In the firstplace Patrick Henry was and is NO AUTHORITY on either treaties or theConstitution, and he opposed it, IF it is too late to do anything aboutreinstating our Constitution, then why not just accept the traitorous U.N.Charter-Treaty without more ado? Why didn't the American Revolutionists think ittoo late or too difficult to defend their Liberty? And IF thehighly-intelligent framers of the Constitution "were well aware of the deathtrapincorporated in ARTICLE VI," why then did they so frame it? Did they notexpect PATRIOTS, rather than Treasonists as our elected officials, toHONOR AND ENFORCE the spirit, letter, and intent of the Constitution? 回覆你10月12日的信，也挑戰你1961年11月的文章:引用(Patrick Henry)派屈克.亨利在條約。最早他沒有對條約或憲法的權力，然後他反對它，是否這時作行動來恢復我們憲法已經太遲，為何不直接接受賣國的聯合國憲章-條約就不用這麼累了?為何美國革命家們不認為捍衛他們自由太遲或太難?然後是否那些高智商的憲法制訂者們"有非常注意到憲法第6章上的死亡陷阱"為何他們還制定了它?作為民選官員，難道他們不是我們期望的愛國者而是個叛國者，以榮耀及執行憲法的精神、文字、意圖? I note you say that according to a law dictionary, theterms "legal" and "lawful" are almost one and the same. Agreed!"Almost," but not quite. I believe there is a fine point of difference. Taking usinto the U.N. may SEEM to have been done legally (by the President andSenate), but the act is still unlawful, because it is unconstitutional, andthe CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. All renowned and genuineConstitutional experts (such as Thos. M. Cooley, Thos. Jas. Norton, andHarry Atwood, to name several) have always held that anythingwhich contravenes, diminishes, or perverts the Constitution is null and voidand of no effect. 我注意到你說，根據法律詞典，術語" legal"和" lawful"幾乎意思一樣。同意!"幾乎"但不完全是。我相信這有個很好的點來說明不同之處。想想我們(美國)進入聯合國也許看似合法地(legally)(由總統及參議院)，但行為仍然是非法的(unlawful)，因為這違憲，憲法是國土上的最高法律。所有著名及真誠的憲法專家(如Thos. M. Cooley, Thos. Jas.Norton, and Harry Atwood等等)一直認為任何違反、削弱、曲解憲法的東西、行為是無效、無用的。 Neither the President or Senate has authority or power tochange, diminish, or destroy the Constitution "byusurpation," treaty, or otherwise: only a Constitutional Amendment can lawfully change it. 總統及參議院都沒有權力或權威，藉由篡奪、條約或其它方式，挑戰、裁減、摧毀憲法。只有憲法修正案可以合法地改變它。 The Constitution is a contract that WE THE PEOPLE of theUSA made with one another, which sets up the machinery ofgovernment to carry out this contract —mainly for the purpose of PROTECTINGINDIVIDUAL RIGHTS as well as STATE RIGHTS, AGAINST THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT: and no public official has a right tooverride the provisions of that contract. To quote Thos. Jas. Norton'sConstitution of the United States, Its Application, etc., "A law ofCongress to be one of the supreme laws must be 'made in pursuance thereof and notin conflict with the Constitution. When not made in pursuance thereof itis of course unconstitutional and of no effect." And the samewould similarly apply to a wonderful decision rendered by the Supreme Court or anunlawful Treaty. 憲法是個我們美國人民與美國之間的契約，以建立政府機制去執行這契約-主要目的是為了個人及州的權力，抵抗政府權力:沒有公職人員可以廢除這條約之條款。引用Thos. Jas.Norton的美國憲法，"國會立法的最高規則是，制定時必須奉行不與憲法相衝突。當制定內容、過程違憲，則無效。"同樣的規則也適用做判別，在最高法院或違法的條約上。 And from Norton's Undermining the Constitution, whichquotes Alexander Hamilton in No. 33 of The Federalist: "Itwill not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines thesupremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution" (emphasis byHamilton). And from page 21, "The General Government can claim no powerswhich are not granted to it by the Constitution, and the powersactually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessaryimplication." 從諾頓Norton的破壞憲法，引用亞力山大.漢密頓(Alexander Hamilton)的33號聯邦主義:"我認為這將不會逃離監視，它明確嚴格管制立法須根據憲法 "(漢密頓強調)。然後第21頁，"總政府在無憲法授權下將無權力，其權力授予必須明確地給出，或由必要的意涵給出" Anyone with the presumed intelligence to be President ofthe USA must know that he cannot lawfully make any suchfar-reaching treaty with the United Nations, or any other foreign power, as youenvision by your language, without laying himself open to the charge ofTREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution. Just ordinarycommon sense is required to know that our alleged Treaty with the U.N.and acceptance of the all-inclusive terms of its Charter by our Presidents(beginning with FDR, who connived with Stalin at Yalta for the setting upof the U.N. in the USA) and our Senate, is a violation of their sacred oathof office as per ARTICLE III, Section 2 of the Constitution. 任何有點智力的人當上了美國總統，一定知道他無法和聯合國、其他國外力量，或你想像到的語言，合法地做出如此深遠的條約，使他自己不會遭遇背叛憲法第3條第3款(叛國罪)的嫌疑。簡單需要知道的常識是，我們所謂與聯合國的條約，以及對包羅萬象的憲章所作的承諾，由我們總統(由羅斯福開始，他與史達林共謀成立聯合國，在美國雅爾達)及參議院做出的決定，是違反他們就職時的神聖誓言，在憲法第3條第2款。 註:這就是雅爾達會議。 Such a Treaty makes a mockery of any genuine allegianceto OUR Flag and Constitution. A genuine American, Abraham Lincoln,said, "Worse than traitors-in-arms are the men who, pretending loyaltyto the Flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation." Thinkof any TRUTH more applicable to the present time? 這樣子的條約蔑視任何對我們國旗及憲法真正的忠誠。一位真正的美國人，亞伯拉罕.林肯說:"更糟的是，武裝叛國者是一群人，假裝對國旗忠誠，在國家發生不幸時盡情吃喝然後肥胖起來。"想看看任何更多可適用於現在的事實。 A number of our officials, including former Secretary ofState Dean Acheson, the late John Foster Dulles, and members of ourpresent oneworld Kennedy entourage go along with the statement that theUSA now has NO "domestic" affairs: there has been amelding of our domestic and foreign affairs! (Meld means to merge.) 我們一些官員，包含前國務卿迪安.艾奇遜(Dean Acheson)，後來的約翰.福斯特.杜勒斯(John Foster Dulles)，以及許多現今甘迺迪隨員都認同這陳述，美國現在已經沒有"國內"事務:已經融和我們國內及過外事務!(融合意思是合併) | 
